I don't share your pessimissm. In this youtube video Shadow's partial TGE (Torque3D's precursor) port runs at 7-21 fps. Not great, but that's on one of the older Amigas (A1-XE maybe) using an old Radeon graphics card and Warp3D. The 7 fps only occurred when rendering the water.
yes.. but there is a "little" differences between mac version and os4 one.. imagine if you have all textures and effects (if you could have..). You will slowdown. I've seen it in nexus port.. And however if you make 20fps with a modern game you will have an uplayable game. I'm not pessimistic.. i'm realistic.. and however i repeat.. i'm speaking about our implementations.
Quote:
My A1-X1000 is faster than the A1-XE, has faster memory, and even my Radeon HD 4650 is faster than a Radeon 9000. I have a test program that is rendering approx. 200,000 (~50,000 per render pass) triangles at 1920x1080 smoothly on a Radeon HD 4650, and that's not even the fastest graphics card that we can use.** No, the test program doesn't use Gallium3D, but it does use hardware Transformation, Clipping and Lighting (TCL), and in-VRAM vertex buffers. Both of these are things that Gallium3D offers that Warp3D cannot do. This gives a glimpse of what will be possible.
I'm sure this will be possible.. but we don't have nothing to test this and so i can speak only for the library we have and we can use. Nothing else
Quote:
So, I'm optimistic about how well 3D engines such as Torque3D, C4 Engine and Unity3D might run on AmigaOS once MESA + Gallium3D are available. However, you will need to buy a decent graphics card. You can expect the frame-rate to suck if you choose a low-end card such as a Radeon HD 4350 (or any *350 for that matter).
I hope so.. but seeing also the linux software where PC are modern and A LOT faster that the X1000, if they didn't had official ATI/Nvidia drivers they can't play nothing of modern and huge with mesa drivers.. Well.. we'll see.. Hans
seeing also the linux software where ... if they didn't had official ATI/Nvidia drivers they can't play nothing of modern and huge with mesa drivers..
Crysis 2 running 1 year ago on only open-source drivers (with a lot of Windows emulation overhead & unfinished DX10/11 emulation) managed around 20 fps on a Radeon HD 4850: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ_T_xepfW8
Now yeah, 20 fps is only so so in playability terms, but Crysis 2 is a very demanding & very modern game, and there were Windows emulation overheads & unfinished DX10/11 emulation, so overall I think it is actually quite a decent result.
Run a slightly older game, or use less demanding graphics settings, and avoid the Windows emulation (by having a native port), and preferably OpenGL instead of fake DX10/11, and I think you'd see much better results. And of course that was 1 year ago anyway, and things must have improved since then.
And then remember that we won't be playing Crysis 2 on an Amiga, but only old open-sourced stuff like say Doom 3, and I think we can actually be quite hopeful about good frame rates.
Also worth noting how Crysis 2 actually ran on real machines: Quote:
Minimum: 2GHz Core 2 Duo / A64 X2 CPU, 2GB RAM, 8800GT / HD3850, 512MB Video Memory, DX9.0c, Shader Model 3.0, Windows XP, 20fps @ 1024 x 768
Recommended: 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo / A64 X2 CPU, 3GB RAM, GTX280 / HD4870, 1GB Video Memory, DX9.0, Shader Model 3.0/4.0, Windows XP, 30fps @ 1650 x 1080
Highly Recommended: 3GHz Core i7 4GB RAM, GTX560Ti / HD4870 X2, 1.8GB Video Memory, DX11, Shader Model 3.0/4.0, Windows 7, 30fps @ 1920 x 1200
(So in fact 30 fps was considered the normal frame rate, and 20 fps was considered acceptable.)
P.S. Everyone thinks they are "realists", but probably most of them are actually pessemists... Being a realist is very hard, because often you would have to say "I don't know enough to offer a realistic opinion" (in such situations you have to fall-back on being an optimist or pessemist, or stay silent).
I have a wait and see attitude, but anyway it can’t be any worst then what we have now rally.
It’s no question that X1000 is way better and faster than XE, hell XE slower than Sam460, the XE has so horrible slow memory access it almost makes me cry.
I have been dreaming about getting more out of my hardware maybe use composition, maybe this what I need look at to get my paint program to work as it should, anyway I did not need any hardware acceleration to do the same on Linux in 2002/2003 on single core Athlon 1.8 Ghz chip, yes Athlon chip was maybe 2 x faster than the G4 933Mhz, but memory access was also way better.
X1000 does not have all issues that XE has so this should be great.
(NutsAboutAmiga)
Basilisk II for AmigaOS4 AmigaInputAnywhere Excalibur and other tools and apps.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Warp3D cannot even run any of these engines due to lacking shader support, so speaking "only for the library we have and we can use" is pointless. You won't get even 1-2fps; it simply won't run.
I would be very disappointed if people decided to "forget them" (the game engines) like you suggested. Work is ongoing to get Gallium3D up and running for Radeon HD cards, which will make using these game engines possible. Now would be a good time for developers interested in porting these engines to get familiar with the code.
I've tried to compile a lot of engines, also without using shaders and the result was always the same. I never said that they are not useful for us.. i've said that they are unuseful at moment. When i've released nexuis all complain about the speed. So, i'll repeat. I don't have Gallium. I'm using the Minigl. And so i can test only the minigl. So ALL those engines at moment (and i repeat.. at moment) are unuseful. When we will have a full compatible opengl library i'll try to recompile them and see.. but today 20fps for a modern game are really few. so 1-2 fps, 7 or 20 is the same.
afxgroup wrote: I've tried to compile a lot of engines, also without using shaders and the result was always the same. I never said that they are not useful for us.. i've said that they are unuseful at moment. When i've released nexuis all complain about the speed. So, i'll repeat. I don't have Gallium. I'm using the Minigl. And so i can test only the minigl. So ALL those engines at moment (and i repeat.. at moment) are unuseful. When we will have a full compatible opengl library i'll try to recompile them and see.. but today 20fps for a modern game are really few. so 1-2 fps, 7 or 20 is the same.
Sigh. This is pointless. Torque3D will NOT run without shaders, end of story. So, talking about Warp3D and "at the moment" is pointless and, quite frankly, counterproductive.
You're welcome to sit there and complain about how everything sucks "at the moment," but I've got better things to do (like, maybe, working on improving things).
Well "1-2 fps, 7 or 20" are not exactly the same ...
I think that we can leave this discussion at that. Everyone has made their point (myself included), and we're getting into a pointless side discussion.
Besides, everyone agrees that we need to wait for Gallium3D.
Is it possible for you to release Homeworld port for OS4/Warp3D ? I guess it would run very will with Wazp3D, because Aquaria is running very well with Wazp3D on Sam460.
"All these engines are unuseful right now because you will play everything at 1-2fps.. so forget them.."
He was referring to current Warp3D. Engine like Unity and other modern engines wont works under warp3d, due the lack of shaders and new gen technology.
25fps gives smooth enough action on television etc. Human eye usually can not detect higher frame rates. So, 20fps is already very good.
But there are some special people that want higher frame rate... just keep in mind that 60fps is maximum for standard LCD monitors (60Hz)(assuming that LCD pixels can switch state in less than 17ms... they should do 2ms nowdays, so not an issue).
Or something.... ;)
- Kimmo --------------------------PowerPC-Advantage------------------------ "PowerPC Operating Systems can use a microkernel architecture with all it�s advantages yet without the cost of slow context switches." - N. Blachford
Yes but usually its not just the frame rate that drops but also things like controls slow down, and normal when you have average of 25 fps it means that you have +/- 10% or 20% margin above and under.
I notice the difference in low frame rate in movies or slow LCS displays, I guess the more eyesight is blurred the less you notice.
(NutsAboutAmiga)
Basilisk II for AmigaOS4 AmigaInputAnywhere Excalibur and other tools and apps.
25fps gives smooth enough action on television etc. Human eye usually can not detect higher frame rates.
i think you're mixing some things. the 25fps for a tv set being "smooth" means, that you see the single pictures not as single pictures but as a "moving film". for computer games this is completely different. imagine you're playing a first person shooter. you as a person are standing still and turing around for 360 degrees. on and on. let's imaging this takes 2 seconds. 2 seconds -> 360 degrees. having 25 fps means 50 "still" pictures rendered for a 360 degree turn. about one picture every 6 degrees. wouldn't it be much smoother to be able to see a picture every 3 degrees? or even better? if you turn around your head in a room also everything looks "smooth" and not "stuttered". so 50-70 fps is much more adequate i think.
News feed
OS4 Feedback forum
OS4Depot Feedback forum
Amigabounty forum
OpenAmiga forum
AmiCygnix forum
ABC shell forum
AmiKit forum
Cinnamon Writer forum
CodeBench forum
Digital Universe forum
Dopus 5 forum
E-UAE forum
Gnash forum
Ibrowse forum
JAmiga forum
Odyssey forum
OWB forum
Qt forum
SmartFileSystem forum
Timberwolf forum
TouchDevice forum
TuneNet forum
Unsatisfactory Software forum
Donate
